Partly allowed

P.Samraj v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC21 Jun 2010WP(C)/14300/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging suspension, the Kerala High Court held that an order rejecting a review application was invalid for non-application of mind as it ignored the petitioner's submissions. The court set aside the rejection order and directed the authorities to reconsider the review application within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P11 order; direct first respondent to reconsider Ext.P10 review application for suspension within 8 weeks.

P.Samraj Vs the State of Kerala and Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 14300 of 2010(J) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

P.SAMRAJ, S/O.M.PARAMU, AGED 52 YEARS, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT (UNDER SUSPENSION), VELLANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (RESIDING AT SOUMYA, P.O. OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 125).

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.M.SAJJAD

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT DIVISION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L S G D SECTION, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

THE SECRETARY, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND BABU

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶21

--------------------------------------------------

¶22

W.P.(C) NO.14300 OF 2010 (J) -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2010

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Petitioner was the Secretary in charge of Kallara Grama Panchayat during the period from 8.2.2008 to 2.6.2008. On certain allegations of misconduct concerning the tender that was awarded for the construction of the office building, he has been placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order. He applied for review of the suspension, that was considered and was rejected by Ext.P11. It is challenging Exts.P1 & P11 that the writ petition is filed.

¶25

Petitioner relies on Ext.P13, the Government order issued on 24.4.2010 deleting the finding in the impugned proceedings that on account of the misconduct loss was caused to the Panchayat.

¶26

Learned counsel submits that the main allegations based on which he has been placed under suspension are three fold. First is that the details of the offer mentioned in the tender documents were not incorporated in the agenda of the Panchayat meeting or the agreement. According to the petitioner, his specific case is that this allegation concerns the clerk in the Panchayat who was placed

¶27

WPC.No.14300 /2010

¶28

:2 :

¶29

under suspension along with him. Second allegation levelled against the petitioner is that before finalising the contract, the negotiation was not held with the contractor. The specific case of the petitioner, in so far as this allegation is concerned, it is the responsibility of the committee of the Panchayat and not that of the Secretary. In so far as the 3^rd allegation is concerned, the allegation is that while the committee reviewed its earlier decision, petitioner did not record the dissenting note. According to the petitioner, the meeting was held on 31.12.2008 and prior to that date, by Ext.P12 dated 3.6.2008, he was transferred from the Panchayat. It is stated that therefore the 3^rd respondent cannot find fault with the petitioner on this account.

¶30

Irrespective of the merits of the contentions raised, a reading of Ext.P11 order rejecting the petitioner's review application shows that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner has been considered by the Government.

¶31

Therefore, on the ground that the said order has been passed, without adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner, the order is vitiated for non application of mind. For that

¶32

WPC.No.14300 /2010

¶33

:3 :

¶34

reason I set aside Ext.P11 and the first respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P10 application filed by the petitioner for review of Ext.P1 order of suspension. Order shall be passed adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition.

¶35

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶37

vi/

P.Samraj v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Samraj v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Hamza and Another Vs Jolly Varghese

J.Raveendran Vs S.Sasidharan

Bindu Krishnankutty Vs State of Kerala

Sumathi C. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

S. Asok Kumar Vs State of Kerala

M.C.Sanalkumar Vs the State and Others